Björn Persson <Bjorn(a)xn--rombobjrn-67a.se> writes:
Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On 10/2/19 8:33 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 05:31:56PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>
>>>> ○ Every changes to dist-git is done via pull-requests
>>>
>>> Erm, no thank you. Pull requests are a terrible workflow.
>>
>> It's definitely the winning workflow in the open source world today,
>> particularly for smaller and drive-by contributions, which I think
>> we'd like to encourage.
>
> It's an awesome workflow for those cases. Not so much when you are
> the maintainer of said piece.
In the drive-by contributor role I've always found pull requests
unwieldy. I thought they were intended for frequent contributors or
project members, for whom the added clicking might be a small burden
compared to all the work they do for the project.
Perhaps pull requests are convenient for a maintainer who receives
them in large numbers – I've only ever received one pull request so I
can't judge – but I don't see how they would encourage drive-by
contributions. If you want to encourage drive-by contributions, then
you should make it easy to submit a patch without first registering an
account, forking a project and so on.
I have experienced this as a maintainer as well. The issue for drive-by
contributors is not so much pull requests as the account system itself.
For example, I had a contributor from OpenSUSE email me patches to my
pagure-hosted project (gssproxy) rather than opening a pull request
because they didn't have a Fedora account.
If you look at GitLab, for example, they support a *ton* of federated
sign-ins: GitLab supports Google, Twitter, GitHub, Bitbucket, and
Salesforce.
Thanks,
--Robbie